Not that different from shooting somebody if you are afraid for your life. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. It doesn't stop people like Darryl Brooks from being total psychopaths and getting convicted.
As I stated in a previous posting of this, he's pointing out that there's no ideological consistency here. If you think all it takes to play as a woman in women's sports is to say you're a woman then why can someone who does not identify as a woman play in women's sports?
I'm comparing the current politically correct interpretation of what you say is the end all be all vs the old fashioned way of biology determined exclusion. If it seems contradictory then my point is proven.
Male puberty gives permanent advantages. HRT can only do so much. The point isn't the biology though since the current thing is to let anyone who identifies as woman compete against women so why would we change that to say somebody who doesn't identify as female compete against women?
The point of the women's leagues is so they don't have to compete against men because women are biologically unable to compete at the same high level as men. If a biological woman decides not to identify as such why would she be allowed to continue in that league? Isn't that the point of allowing mtf transgenders to compete against women if they identify as such? It's logically consistent.
But why though? Why the insistence on portraying people in documentaries or biographies as someone completely different? Why not do a biography on a black dude or black lady who can be played by such instead of trying to change the race of historical figures for fun?
Colt didn't call it the great equalizer for nothing. Imagine being a 90 lb woman facing rape or death by a 200 lb man. Don't think for a second anything but a gun will allow her to save herself.
I like my Keychron K4